Group chat think: A warning for communicators from the US midterm elections

I’m self-aware enough to know that I don’t have the stamina for an overnight US midterm election watch party any more. A killer combination of years of raised expectations and bitter disappointment has taught me better. But I’m still enough of an anorak to want to know what happened in Texas before I’ve had my coffee the next morning. Waking up to the scale of the Democratic wins this week, I was quite glad I’d slept through the bit where everyone on the group chat was an expert. Mostly because I know I’d have been one of them.

Texas was the race that got me thinking. The charismatic Senator-elect James Talarico ran an outstanding campaign. He’s personable, has a good story to tell and, importantly, has the talent to sell it. But as any comms professional knows - a good campaign is only half the battle. What interested me, and where I think the lesson for communicators lies, is in the approach taken by the GOP. In May, Republican primary voters had a choice between their sitting senator, John Cornyn, and the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton. Cornyn was a solid candidate with significant experience who appealed to a broad base. Donald Trump disagreed, however, and endorsed Paxton, who won the run-off with nearly two thirds of the vote. Earlier this week, Texans elected democrat James Talarico to the seat in what can only be described as a routing.

We’ll never know whether Cornyn would have held it. What we do know is that senior Republicans had argued he was the stronger candidate for the general election. So there was a warning. What interests me is how easy it was for decision makers to discount it. Imagine making that argument the morning after Paxton had won so convincingly. You’d have been the one who sounded out of touch. And yet the question you were asking was the one the organisation still had to answer. How would this decision go down with people who weren’t in your bubble?

Who do you ring for a sense check?

I’ve been to enough election counts in Northern Ireland, good and bad, to recognise the feeling. As a former director of communications for the SDLP, I tried to seek out a range of opinions before big decisions. On reflection, the truth is that a lot of the time I heard similar views from good people whose judgement I trusted. Views that were often interesting but less often challenging. Then the ballot boxes open and you realise just how small your circle actually is.

There are forms of comms and PR work that lend themselves to this particular kind of groupthink, or what could probably be more accurately described as group chat think. You spend the working day with colleagues who broadly share your vision and values. You go home and talk it over with friends or family who’ve heard your side of the story for years. By the time somebody asks what you think the public mood is, or how your customers, clients or constituents will react, you can give them a pretty confident answer. 

There’s nothing peculiar to politics about that unconscious bias. In PR, part of what we offer a leader is our judgement about how other people will see a decision - how it will land. The awkward bit is that we have preferences of our own, including for the advice we’ve just given. Once I’ve recommended a course of action, I have a reason to give more weight to the colleague who thinks it will work. We can all do that quite sincerely while telling ourselves we’ve consulted widely. And we risk setting ourselves on the same course as the Republicans: about to find out that the group chat isn’t as representative as we thought.

What would change your advice?

There’s a test here for anyone who leads a team. Think about who you ring when you’re making a big call. Do they all know the same people, read the same things and broadly share your views? If one of them thinks you’ve got it wrong, how easy do you make it for them to tell you? And how open are you to hearing that message? 

Before a big decision, ask yourself what evidence would change your recommendation. Then seek out someone whose experience gives them a reason to see it differently. Ask for their assessment before explaining yours. That gives them a chance to challenge your thinking before you’ve persuaded them to agree with it.

I’m a fan of the group chat of civilian experts - come Super Tuesday in the next election cycle I’ll proudly take my place in it. So I’d keep it. But I’d also be a bit more careful about whose views I claim it represents when somebody asks for my advice. Sometimes the most useful thing those of us in comms can say is, “This will absolutely pop off in the group chat, but maybe we should get some other views too.”

Martin McAuley is communications lead at the Law Society of Northern Ireland. A former director of communications for the SDLP and senior parliamentary adviser, he has worked across political, policy and membership organisations, advising leaders on media relations, reputation and public engagement. He writes in a personal capacity.